Evaluation of the Protected Areas Program: chapter 8

5.0 Conclusions

Relevance

• The program targets an ongoing need for habitat protection and is intended to fulfill commitments under the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
• The program objectives and its components are consistent with current federal and departmental priorities.
• The program fulfills an appropriate federal government role, addresses needs that are appropriate to the federal jurisdiction and is complementary to efforts/programs of other EC units, federal departments, provincial/territorial/municipal governments, and to non-government organizations.

Performance

• The PA program has made progress toward a number of its objectives related to the creation of a national network of protected areas, linkages to international networks, and access and benefits sharing by Aboriginal peoples, although improvements can be realized in each of these areas (e.g., greater resiliency and redundancy of priority habitats).
• The PA is not making adequate progress toward its intended outcomes related to the management of the ecological integrity of protected areas, monitoring and/or benchmarking to assess impacts on wildlife, the development of new knowledge and data contributing to EC’s needs and objectives, and the public’s understanding and support of the role and importance of PAs. There are sites that should be considered for de-listing.
• Certain management requirements, such as site management plan development and approval, are too time consuming and lengthy to meet program objectives. Land acquisition, a key function of the PA program, is a lengthy process and acquisition delays beyond the program’s control have impacted program effectiveness.
• Performance data is very limited and there are very few documented, well recognized and/or accepted specific targets for performance; of particular importance is the lack of indicators of ecological integrity. Furthermore, there appears to be little or no program activity in support of several outcomes, thus suggesting a need to re-evaluate whether these outcomes should be retained.
• The program manages sites with expenditures of less than $1 per hectare per year, which is much lower than other organizations performing similar roles. While there is no evidence of significant waste, the program fails to perform all of the activities for which it is responsible, and as identified in the program’s logic model. A few areas where efficiency could be enhanced have been identified (e.g., greater coordination and collaboration, enhanced communication). The PA program does not work closely enough with the full range of stakeholders to leverage partnerships in order to make a greater impact.